旧浪潮论坛之：关注缅甸（一）

Yol:

我们能做什么

Dear wavers,
已经好多天了。缅甸已然成为一方让全世界都揪心的地方。
我每天都在不同的朋友们的博客上看到对那个国度的关注。只是到今天，终于从旧浪潮这一整个礼拜的批判或者说调整中抽离出来的时候，在胡坤那里（也是第一个这样做的waver）看到声援entry的时候，看到格格留言说她和周书正讨论过这件事的时候，才感觉到特别的难过。 "关注现实"的旧浪潮，是不是过于忙于内部批判，而忘了抬头看世界。
旧浪潮强调政治中立，但这已然不仅仅是一个政治问题。正如同我作为一个基督徒，依然为那些僧侣祷告。
我也不知道我们能做什么。但是似乎我们不应保持沉默，抑或冷漠。


Gill:

thx for the reminder. well...I guess one thing we are in an excellent position to appreciate is, as EU put it, this: "China is the puppet-master of Burma. The Olympics is the only real lever we have to make China act." But bear in mind that EU's interests in Burma are no comparison to those of China.
The source of the statement: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7018285.stm. (Additional comment: Though a piece of journalism it is, i think it nevertheless says a little truth -- about realpolitik, sth much more real than many other politics. And, if i may add, the Good would never profit very much from fighting a plain Evil because it is by nature inclined to fancy that every Evil is as plain as the present one that it recognises so mindlessly and dismisses so effortlessly.)

周书：

可以做的事情还是有的。
http://www.uscampaignforburma.org/index.html
这个网站上的what you can do和student & community action提供了很多灵感。
即便我们没有办法改变什么，至少我们可以通过这些事情教育一下自己。
可以以"旧浪潮"的名义群发邮件，鼓励大家到上面那个网站和http://www.actionburma.com签字。

Cho:

Dear All,

I used to favor the Kantian view that, putting aside the intertwined interests embedded in international politics, benevolent intervention might seem too demanding a rule for states to comply with. Besides, there is also this notion of state sovereignty, which turns out to be too popular an excuse for political expediency.

However, the incident of Saffron Revolution is really compelling me to abandon this position. Perhaps the analogy cannot be recklessly drawn from personal autonomy to state sovereignty. One may reasonably retain a libertarian view on individual freedom, whereas in the case of state, which is more a community for its people than an entity in itself, a more paternalistic approach is needed. After all, human right is more justifiable to trump other weighty political considerations. In the realm of international politics, if we only admit states as actors, we may run the risk of creating an illusion of justice while turning a blind eye to the conspiracy of some states against their citizens.

But once the precedent has been established, it is also troublesome to notice that, since state sovereignty may be all-or-nothing, the concern for human right is vulnerable to contamination. Not to our surprise, it is already a sadly common phenomenon. Nevertheless, I suppose a paternalistic overreaction always does less harm than an indifferent connivance.

Yol:

十分感谢周书的分享
我自己会尽快整理并发在自己的各个博客/校内/facebook上
建议下次内部沙龙以此为主题

Gill:

looks like I have to make my point a bit more explicit --

1. Wherever ones signs his name, as a protest against the Burmese Government, this is, as a matter of fact, useless. And useless he who signs his name knows it to be. A tyrant as good as any, the Burmese Govt won't care a damn; but it will probably thank you for the reminder of how important it is to wash the blood away asap.

2. There is however one thing that we, Chinese, can do, and that is not entirely hopeless: Protest against the Chinese Government. China's interference, if it does interfere, may or may not make a great difference; but surely it is one of the most persuasive intermediater the world is counting upon and, until now, vainly. And indeed, Burma is neither the first nor the last call for China's action: there is the on-going Darfur conflict, in which China is believed to be trading human rights for oil. Not to mention the incidents that are classified as our "internal affairs," only the number of which will make an average Burma campaigner bored.

3. I have no objection to joining a US campaign or whatsoever. But given 1 and 2 above, I would feel most uneasy if I were to channel my protest against the crime to a loudspeaker faraway, abroad, while My Govt at home is aiding the criminal by inaction. Ture, that if we stand up we may make a difference, if only to ourselves. But how we stand up makes a difference also. Standing up against Rangoon, you achieve absolutely nothing. Against Beijing, however, you are still highly likely to lose, but the chance of winning is not zero: Beijing, experienced, and having survived in peace, is more reasonable than its terrified Burmese counterpart; besides, it's a critical time for Beijing to give a positive impression to the world, having regard to the coming Party's Congress and the Olympic games. No matter what the chance, I suggest to you that a consistent campaigner should be against both.

Yet there is also this difference: Standing up against the Burmese Govt we are absolutely safe; while against the Chinese Govt, it seems we'd have to run a certain risk. And this risk I prefer to avoid. Having realised that, I almost cannot, in accusing the principal evil, get rid of the feeling that the decision of letting the accessory walk free is an decision unwittingly, unfortunately, and even ignobly, calculated.

旧浪潮论坛之：关注缅甸（二）

旧浪潮论坛之：关注缅甸（二）

周书：

Ok, i don't see why we always have to complicate what is simple. There are situations where actions might turn out useless, yet the very belief that they are RIGHT should make us feel obliged to do something.

Clarifications:
1. the reason why i put down the us campaign website here is simply because i haven't found any other campaign sites online except a British one
2. the overseas campaigns at the present stage are indeed against the Chinese Government. Other than joining the international protest, i don't know how we can pressure our gov. through domestic politics

To be honest, already angry with my own powerlessness, seeing people talk and talk without coming down to the practical only made me angrier. And do we really have to use English among us? Especially with such long paragraphs, is it just me or this at least to some degree looks alienating and condescending?

Gill and Cho, I have to apologize for my fury. You know I mean no harm. I'm sorry if my words seem too strong. I just feel obliged to speak out my true feelings. And for others, I won't write to you in English again I promise.

Gill:

be calm, Miss Zhou
And may you grant me the opportunity to repeat myself: Nowhere did I suggest that one shouldn't do anything (especially when the "RIGHT" KIND of things to do becomes so obvious); nor that one should not "feel obliged" to do so -- let alone by reason of uselessness! I said this, that I myself feel uneasy, and just this, without implying anyone else does, or should, feel the same way.

To make myself understood I perhaps have to draw a distinction, which I hope you will see in the following (though, in order to make it sharp, the difference is inevitably exaggerated a bit): All that I'm unhappy about the campaigns of the "humanitarian" kind is that they do more good to the campaigners than to their objects; that apart from providing the strong conscience (by which I mean the conscience that is simply offended rather than feeling obliged to be so) with a means to cry out its anger, they also lend to a weak conscience (which feels it should, and hence pretends to be more concerned than it really is) the comfort that "After all I have done something," which it is not, in my opinion, entitled to.

So, if I'm complicating what you believe to be simple, this is because a weak conscience is usually more complicated than a strong one. And also because human suffering is such a mirror that if an underground man peers into it he will see not the splendor of humanitarianism but the shabbiness of a human being, of he himself. The strong conscience I have always admired (and I guess you've probably got one); but as for the weak ones like mine, I'm prepared to deprive them of all their comfort.

Then why writing in English? Well, why not -- for its subordinate clauses that can be as convoluted as one's feelings, for the extra effort one has to make in composing even a single sentence by which process one sharpens one's thoughts, for the smaller risk one runs of sacrificing logic knowingly or unknowingly to aesthetic concerns, for all these that are conducive to my present purpose? To the charge of condescension I plead not guilty.

Lastly, I wonder why you addressed your apology to "Gill and Cho"; obviously Cho is on your side. I like strong words, btw.

Sapientia:

Sorry for being absent from the discussion for couples of weeks. Well, I do think Burma demonstration is caused by non-political factors but turns out to be politics-oriented. For the countries like Burma where politics, if we understand it as participation of public affairs, is purposely to be separated from the public, discontent for non-political stuff might be good channel for the public, or the monasteries in Burma to demand beyond what they can expect from the ruling leadership.

the outbreak of mass demonstration in Burma has caused 200 casualties and it seems more strict order to strike down the protest is en route. Yol said Burma's event has gone beyond a political matter and could be transformed to a talk of what we must hold for truth. This seems to me so far still uncertain, and therefore I suggest we continue to keep an eye on the development of Burma's demonstration. Our talk over the issue could be the best way to show our concern.

旧浪潮论坛之：关注缅甸（三）

旧浪潮论坛之：关注缅甸（三）

Sapientia:

[To Cho:]
Your comment inspires me of the talk between moral relativism and objectivism. if we hold a libertarian position and claim for state non-interference with private area, surely we assume there is a place that we call private area where state influence must be mitigated to the least level, and this private area might include fundamental freedoms of citizens that are or are not prescribed in the state constitution.

Moral relativism would say: wait a minute, you are too quick to assume this private area is a matter of fact in every society, though I will pay respect to the society where this private area is very much under respect by the state's sovereignty. Moral relativism reject any truth-value statements of moral judgment, for them it is not meaningful to talk about whether abortion is right or wrong objectively. they tends to believe moral judgment is very much regional or agent determined. An possible objection to moral relativism would be moral skepticism, which criticize there is no talk of moral truth in relativist position. Potentially, moral relativism would be challenged for indifference or incapacity to reprimand holocaust or great artificial famine. I used to prove that neither tolerance nor interference is justifiable according to the moral relativism.

So, a moral relativist might be rather withdrawn from emotive condemnation of mass crackdown of demonstration in Burma: I understand Burma's people demand for democracy and respect the choice made by the protesters.

How about moral objectivism? Might be better in case of Burma demonstration. They might argue some moral statement such as "human right is intuitively needed by a rational citizen" or "crackdown is by no means justifiable". the problem with moral objectivism is the question of normatively, since every objective statement of morality always assume some kinds of normative value are more desirable or acceptable, so it is crucial to know where these favored norms come from and why they are more superior than others. Can we find consistence among all of those normative values? If yes, what makes them consistent? If not, how we can be sure any statement of morality is objective?

The reason of human right abuse is what we think justifiable for interference with Burma's crisis, and personally, if I do not confuse myself with those philosophical talk, I think we can do something to show our concern, such as what Yol has suggested. I do not mean to challenge any of your argument, this is merely a bit of reflection.

刘畅：

各位：

大家的意见有的让我大受启发，有的让我迷惑不明。所以，在Yol的提议下，我有在READING WEEK其中（最好是靠前）的某日为此开一个沙龙交流的打算，主题、地点、时间一切待定。期待大家回复发表意见，最终完善我们的沙龙规划：）
以下是我希望在沙龙中涉及的内容：

"知识窗"（实在不知怎么归纳，想了个这词儿）
1、关于缅甸本身，我希望在这方面有了解和认识的同学做一个"常识性普及"教育。这个本身，包括缅甸最近一百年政治、经济、文化和宗教的变迁史。——因为我觉得对于我们分析问题很有必要。补充谈了解和认识。
2、谈谈我们所了解亚洲相关国家和相似国家的民生、政治和人权状况，说说他们的潜在问题，他们是否也存在发生这样事情的可能性，例如柬埔寨、斯里兰卡、马来西亚等等等等。

"我们"
1、关于我们的国家的态度，看法。关于人权和主权、大国外交伦理的问题。
2、我们应该以怎么样的行动声援。。。因为我目前只想到AWARENESS，所以才想了"知识窗"。

"文化"
受《明报》启发，它对僧人为什么成为这场运动的主角做了分析，引出了"入世僧人"的概念，这给我们提出了一个问题：宽范一点就是处于社会不同角色的人以如何不同的姿态为民生争取普世价值的问题。从僧人的举动,联系到当年甘地在印度有印度教哲学风采的不抵抗运动,联系到中国古代的士文化和出世文化(老庄等人.不知道我是不是曲解了 )....对我们来说都是很现实的.这个话题,有助于让一些觉得自己"不关心政治"的人参与起来,发挥作用。

我本人希望这是一个发于缅甸而不拘泥于缅甸的沙龙，它可以带给我们的除了愤慨和谴责，还可以是思考分析得到的血淋淋的现实和认识，也可能是希望和乐观的发现。因此，我希望它是开放式的，可以信马由缰地乱侃。
我也希望它是一个出于声援而不仅是声援的沙龙，因为这样的事今天可能在这个国家发生，也随时可能在具备同样情况下的任何地方发生。我不知道"知道"可以帮些什么，只是希望我能睁着眼睛面对。

以上是我初步的想法，随时接受指正、删减和添加。然而面对的问题是：沙龙的话题可能沉闷而枯燥，而我不希望愤懑成为人们参加沙龙的动力。而沙龙的形式、分工都还需要大家的建议。

海国图志之：看不见的城市（下）

看不见的城市（上）


The underground of London（伦敦地铁）

伦敦的地铁，它已经华丽了许多年。

从百年前驶来，它不可谓不古；当它满载城市的庸碌离去，又分明透着当下的气息。

拿到伦敦的地铁图，你看到的，便是错综的五彩管子。地下静脉的复杂，使陌生人想要理出头绪就已经殊为不易。幸而英国的残疾人保障做得到位，对于行动不便的市民，甚至盲人，也有无障碍通道、升降梯和盲人地铁图为他们提供方便。只是，有一类人，除非土生土长，是实在无法独立解开这纠结的布局的——那些难被注意到的色盲们。

前面已经提到，伦敦的地铁图是以色彩为标记的。一般人找到自己的目的地，再以颜色为标记，去寻找相应的线路。但伦敦的很多站点是几条线路的交汇处，不同线路的通道往往是早早分开的。在通过检票机器后，乘客就要根据线路的不同，选择下到不同的地方；而在分岔处显示的，只有线路名称，没有具体站名。也就意味着，缺少了色彩的纽带，色盲人士除非走到某条线路的轨道旁，诚惶诚恐地瞄上一眼那里的具体线路图，否则都无从印证自己是不是白跑一趟。

除此之外，由于运行时间长，地铁的新旧参差，提供的服务也就不齐。于是每当列车到站之时，就是其中一些暴露出机器的冰冷之日。这并非什么反工业化的论调，只是亲身经历让我们心有余悸：

指示牌显示，还有一分钟；列车到站，人们早已在各门前扎堆；车门徐徐打开，释放出了令人生畏的人流；先下后上；脚下的一小步，精神的一大步，恍惚间已置身车上。只不闻身后尖叫，车门关闭的提示音没有响起，Helen已经被夹在两扇一心结合的门留出的逼仄空间中了。侧转身体，她挤了进来，而无情的门毅然合紧，彻底将Hailey关在车外。大概由于出发前多次听得这种被迫分散的教诲，加上制定了找寻战略，她并不慌张，只是很无奈地和我们wave goodbye。

这一番惊魂比我们原先想象的糟糕情况还多了点暴力色彩。多次实践后发现，并不是所有车门都不会进行感应，也有一些在触手可及之处安装了紧急停门的按钮，但系统的庞大使伦敦市政府对于将其修葺一新，统一标准的想法有些踌躇。资金负担阻碍了伦敦地铁向更人性化的方向迈进，但资金不是全部。前日，上海地下发生的惨剧令人警醒——一名乘客瞬间被夹在了月台的防护玻璃门和车门之间，继而惨死——设计是人性化设施的要素，我们该如何设身处地，才能防止这样的悲剧再次发生？


CCTV（无处不在“友好之眼”）

伦敦，纵横交错的大街小巷，林林总总的商店铺子，一种醒目的小黄牌俯拾皆是，经常让不明就里的中国人产生莫名的亲切感——“CCTV”，Closed Circuit Television（闭路电视监控系统），每每被英文三角猫误认为我国的中央电视台。虽是笑话，却也能衍生出微妙的牵连。若说大半国人听着CCTV的新闻联播长大；那么全部伦敦人，也都在CCTV的监控下生活。

英国方寸之地，却占有全球1/5的监视器。据说今年更是攀升到每两人一台的可怕密度。你推开便利店门，会被玻璃上那个橙色的CCTV inside刺到眼睛；你走进电话亭拿起听筒，正有人等着听你将要说些什么；你走出家门手拎垃圾，这一瞬里也算是半个恐怖分子的后备力量。在伦敦的每一天，我们被捕捉影像400次以上，尚不包括英国公民所要忍受的监视软件、DNA技术、学生智能卡和通讯监控等等五花八门的控制。

一切的不自由，目的明确：打击恐怖分子和犯罪，改善享受公共服务机构的便利。英国人的确做到了。就在我们抵达当天，CCTV拯救了皮卡迪利广场的和平。他们做得甚至超乎想象，一种配有发声系统的监视器，让缺乏公德的手再也不敢乱丢垃圾。

然而，质疑始终存在着，就如我们06年蓦然间看到《窃听风暴》的相似心情。东德和英国的出发点无疑迥异，然而过程中的硬伤却铮然同声——个人隐私权。世界保护隐私组织负责人西蒙·戴维斯说：“他们正在以民主为借口损害我们，我们所有人都应警惕这一点。”隐私权在西方人权价值体系里，算作基本之基本。我们很难想象把十条修正案烂熟于心的美国人放在2000万台监视器下，联邦政府还能够继续生存下去。可是英国做到了。面对着唐宁街门口无数质疑声音，仍然有人能够自豪地说：我们不是克格勃，但我们什么都管！

政府的坚持，无疑加重了英国人的监视噩梦。当年是议会缔造了这个监视社会，如今，下院的反对声音也开始渐强。他们调查、游说、示威、游行。为了让这个800年前就孕育出大宪章的不列颠，摘去如今“欧洲侵犯人权最严重”的帽子。

一切都在挣扎，吵吵嚷嚷地前进，英国信息专员署，一面致力于保护公众信息自由和安全，一面继续着“监视研究网络”的钻研。一种说不清道不明的疑惑包围着民众。

英国人关心国家的安全，社会的文明，也追求自己的安全，自己的自由。人权高于主权，但主权保障着人权，这个国家大概没有想到，在不起眼的基础设施上，也能掀起立国之本的争端。有能够平衡两者的人，笑称CCTV为友好之眼，他们觉得只要自己行得正，就不怕留影。当然，并不是每个公民都那么释然。在这个宪法在人心，自由在人心，人权在人心的国度，这样的拉锯恐怕还要继续很久很久。

无论如何，英国人敢于把CCTV的数量公诸于众，敢于把自由、人权放到台面上来争执，我们抱着的应该远不止看热闹的心理。



也许走过一次，不足以满足对一方土地的渴望，或再生出一番迷恋，更枉谈深入的了解。尽管连一些英伦之must都不曾领略完，但抱着龙应台那著名的“以下水道见文明”的论断，我们却有幸从这匆匆之中，瞥见一角那深埋的“看不见的城市”。